RE: mastodon.social/@nixCraft/1161…
But at least we only spent a trillion dollars on it, right?
AI Added ‘Basically Zero’ to US Economic Growth Last Year, Goldman Sachs Says gizmodo.com/ai-added-basically… 😂😂😂So far AI has done more damage than adding any true value to productivty unless you consider the following as plus points:
* Getting staff fired
* Stealing journalist, book authors, or artists’ work
* Environment impact
* Hallucinations that caused harm and loss of life
* Creating undressing images of minors and woman
* The list list endless and you have to be psychopaths to like thisAI Added 'Basically Zero' to US Economic Growth Last Year, Goldman Sachs Says
Imported chips and hardware mean the AI investments are translating into US GDP growth.Bruce Gil (Gizmodo)
AI Added ‘Basically Zero’ to US Economic Growth Last Year, Goldman Sachs Says gizmodo.com/ai-added-basically… 😂😂😂
So far AI has done more damage than adding any true value to productivty unless you consider the following as plus points:
* Getting staff fired
* Stealing journalist, book authors, or artists’ work
* Environment impact
* Hallucinations that caused harm and loss of life
* Creating undressing images of minors and woman
* The list list endless and you have to be psychopaths to like this
AI Added 'Basically Zero' to US Economic Growth Last Year, Goldman Sachs Says
Imported chips and hardware mean the AI investments are translating into US GDP growth.Bruce Gil (Gizmodo)
#AI can’t stop recommending nuclear strikes in #wargame simulations
Leading AIs from #OpenAI, #Anthropic and #Google opted to use #nuclearweapons in simulated war games in 95% of cases
The scenarios involved intense international standoffs, including border disputes, competition for scarce resources and existential threats to regime survival.
newscientist.com/article/25168…
What could go wrong?
AIs can’t stop recommending nuclear strikes in war game simulations
Leading AIs from OpenAI, Anthropic and Google opted to use nuclear weapons in simulated war games in 95 per cent of casesChris Stokel-Walker (New Scientist)
Jenniferplusplus
in reply to Jenniferplusplus • • •hachyderm.io/@jenniferplusplus…
Jenniferplusplus (@jenniferplusplus@hachyderm.io)
Jenniferplusplus (Hachyderm.io)Jenniferplusplus
in reply to Jenniferplusplus • • •Jenniferplusplus
in reply to Jenniferplusplus • • •What's a capital strike? That tends to be the question I get in response to this rant.
You know what a labor strike is, right? It's wielding labor as power, by witholding it, as a bargaining tactic.
A capital strike is the same thing, except with capital.
Jenniferplusplus
in reply to Jenniferplusplus • • •But, you have to understand what capital actual is. It's not money. Money is a loose proxy for capital, but that's all. Really, capital is control over economic resources. Raw resources, sure. Big industrial machinery, sure. Networks of transportation and communication, yes. And labor.
Money is kind of the exchange medium for all of that. But capital isn't the money, and it's not the resources. It's the power to distort how those resources are used and applied to suit your own interests, at the expense of the other people involved.
Jenniferplusplus
in reply to Jenniferplusplus • • •That's part of what makes a capital strike non-obvious, if you don't already know what it looks like. It's not just sitting on the money and refusing to spend it. Because that's the one thing you literally can't do with capital. If you leave those resources idle, especially labor, it just goes and does its own thing. You lose control over it. If you just fire everyone, they eventually start working for themselves.
So, to conduct a capital strike, you have to direct the capital toward useless things. Or actually destructive things, if you can manage it.
And thus, AI had "basically zero" effect on the GDP. Because it's economically worthless activity for the purpose of keeping all the resources occupied so they can't be put to any other use.
Daniel Gibson
in reply to Jenniferplusplus • • •I don't know, calling it a "strike" gives this practice more legitimacy than it deserves.. makes it sound like a tool to achieve (mostly) legitimate/understandable goals
Daniel Gibson
in reply to Daniel Gibson • • •Aaron
in reply to Daniel Gibson • • •Aaron
in reply to Aaron • • •We need to end capitalism. We don't have to end markets. We don't have to (and shouldn't) end distributed decision-making. In fact, the real problem is a dearth of these things. We already have centralized control, thanks to our current economic system's ongoing concentration of wealth.
Imagine what an economy made up entirely of cooperatives would look like. Decision-making: distributed equally among stakeholders. Profit: distributed equally among stakeholders. No more perverse incentives to exploit workers and customers for the sake of far off shareholders who don't have to see the consequences of their actions on the local community, because the shareholders *are* the local community.
How much more money, and power over our own lives, would we all have if we didn't have to pay the transactional tax known as "profit" in perpetuity for a one-time investment of capital? *We* would have the capital then!
Alsy
in reply to Aaron • • •Stephen Dioxide
in reply to Alsy • • •Aaron
in reply to Stephen Dioxide • • •Precisely this. We have two avenues available to us: Push for changes to the law, which is the long-term solution, and take our business (and labor!) to cooperatives, which is the short-term solution.
The third thing we can do is increase awareness. Talk about it. Spread the word. Things don't have to work the way they do. We have legitimate and *practical* options!
@Doomed_Daniel @jenniferplusplus @ireneista
Stephen Dioxide
in reply to Aaron • • •I'd argue that working at and shopping at co-ops is a short-term solution AND and a long-term solution. Changes to the law are few and far between, inconsistently enforced, and in danger of being repealed. Expanding the presence of co-ops in the economy is a solution with both breadth and depth.
As for spreading the word, I'd love to refer you to a group I'm part of, GEO (geo.coop), which exists for just this reason. The website is crammed full of useful information, and I'm coordinating the relaunch of our print journal.
Jenniferplusplus
in reply to Stephen Dioxide • • •If you're looking for a USA perspective, we need to change the laws here, first. US law is quite hostile to cooperatives. It's all organized around creating and sustaining corporations owned by shareholders.
In most cases, the closest you can get to creating a coop in this country is to establish an LLC with bylaws that require all owners to also work for the company. Established companies can sometimes transition to cooperatives, but that's a much longer and more difficult path.
Stephen Dioxide
in reply to Jenniferplusplus • • •Aaron
in reply to Stephen Dioxide • • •It's actually super common for C corps, I think. They call them "Delaware corps" because that seems to be the place everyone registers in. I'm guessing there's a lot less of a common standard for cooperatives, though.
@jenniferplusplus @Alsy @Doomed_Daniel @ireneista
Stephen Dioxide
in reply to Aaron • • •Nathan Schneider
in reply to Stephen Dioxide • • •Actually now that is a registered trademark of Jason Wiener's firm:)
Colorado really does have some important advantages, including flexible statutes and experienced lawyers.